The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Mario Buildreps on October 21, 2017, 06:14:45 AM

Title: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Mario Buildreps on October 21, 2017, 06:14:45 AM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: legion on October 21, 2017, 01:13:03 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

Who have made "it" flat? The flat earthers, or the people behind the complex mathematics?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: rabinoz on October 21, 2017, 03:52:36 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

Who have made "it" flat? The flat earthers, or the people behind the complex mathematics?
Why would "the people behind the complex mathematics" make it "flat"?

I'd say the earth has never been "made flat", but has been a Globe for much longer than human history.
Does anyone have any proof to the contrary?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: MicroBeta on October 21, 2017, 05:39:50 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.
Who says they don't understand complex math.  I see a lot of different interpretations and attempt to find a model that their hearts tell them is true.  I disagree but I get it.  It has nothing to do with understanding math & science.

Mike
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 22, 2017, 04:59:07 AM
Yes, indeed they are. Shalom and welcome to the trenches.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Sentinel on October 22, 2017, 10:18:25 AM
Perhaps, complex mathematics is part of the conspiraceee too.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 06:47:15 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 07:12:27 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 07:15:23 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.

I meant specifically.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 07:18:25 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.

I meant specifically.

It is specifical.

A flat earther does not understand trigonometry.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 07:27:28 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.

I meant specifically.

It is specifical.

A flat earther does not understand trigonometry.

Which one? Algebra and trig were a part of my education, got an A in both.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 07:42:24 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.

I meant specifically.

It is specifical.

A flat earther does not understand trigonometry.

Which one? Algebra and trig were a part of my education, got an A in both.

You believe that earth is flat?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 07:46:48 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.

I meant specifically.

It is specifical.

A flat earther does not understand trigonometry.

Which one? Algebra and trig were a part of my education, got an A in both.

You believe that earth is flat?

What gave it away?  ::)

Yeah, my degree is in a science and I graduated summa cum laude.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 07:51:55 PM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.

I meant specifically.

It is specifical.

A flat earther does not understand trigonometry.

Which one? Algebra and trig were a part of my education, got an A in both.

You believe that earth is flat?

What gave it away?  ::)

Yeah, my degree is in a science and I graduated summa cum laude.

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 07:56:32 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:16:22 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So in which kind of science did you graduate summa cum laude?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:21:07 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So in which kind of science did you graduate summa cum laude?

Does it matter?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:24:45 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So in which kind of science did you graduate summa cum laude?

Does it matter?

Well...do you need trigonometry in your field of science?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:29:43 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So in which kind of science did you graduate summa cum laude?

Does it matter?

Well...do you need trigonometry in your field of science?

My education dealt a lot with the behavior of mechanical waves, particularly sound waves, and things to do with them like the Doppler effect. So, yeah. It was also a requirement (straight trig class) before I started my degree-specific classes (which included 3 different physics classes).
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:32:45 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So in which kind of science did you graduate summa cum laude?

Does it matter?

Well...do you need trigonometry in your field of science?

My education dealt a lot with the behavior of mechanical waves, particularly sound waves, and things to do with them like the Doppler effect. So, yeah. It was also a requirement (straight trig class) before I started my degree-specific classes (which included 3 different physics classes).

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:39:19 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:49:14 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:58:40 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: markjo on October 22, 2017, 09:10:52 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So in which kind of science did you graduate summa cum laude?

Does it matter?
I'm guessing that it wasn't in any of the earth sciences.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:11:30 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:33:00 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So in which kind of science did you graduate summa cum laude?

Does it matter?
I'm guessing that it wasn't in any of the earth sciences.

Right. Your point?


And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: rabinoz on October 22, 2017, 09:34:11 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So, you "believe that earth is flat" but haven't the slightest idea as to its shape?
It's must be so handy to always be able to claim ignorance and never able to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:36:27 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So, you "believe that earth is flat" but haven't the slightest idea as to its shape?
It's must be so handy to always be able to claim ignorance and never able to be proven wrong.

What are you going on about?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:51:04 PM



And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:54:09 PM



And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: rabinoz on October 22, 2017, 10:17:03 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So, you "believe that earth is flat" but haven't the slightest idea as to its shape?
It's must be so handy to always be able to claim ignorance and never able to be proven wrong.

What are you going on about?
in the thread "SYD to SCL and flight range" you near enough to denied any knowledge of the shape of your flat earth.
That is what I am on about!
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 10:19:22 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So, you "believe that earth is flat" but haven't the slightest idea as to its shape?
It's must be so handy to always be able to claim ignorance and never able to be proven wrong.

What are you going on about?
in the thread "SYD to SCL and flight range" you near enough to denied any knowledge of the shape of your flat earth.
That is what I am on about!

It's flat. Most likely a disk, but I'll admit that's just an aesthetically appealing idea to me.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 10:32:31 PM



And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away from the earth plain in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 10:34:09 PM



And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.

Want to skip to the point? When did I ever claim the stars were close by?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 10:38:12 PM



And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.

Want to skip to the point? When did I ever claim the stars were close by?

You did not.

But now suddenly I have a different trigonometrical problem.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 10:39:15 PM



And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.

Want to skip to the point? When did I ever claim the stars were close by?

You did not.

But now suddenly I have a different trigonometrical problem.

You really don't need to stretch this one out into 6 different posts.
I told you I'd start to ignore you if you keep doing what you're still doing.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:03:35 PM
When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM
When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:29:45 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Gumwars on October 22, 2017, 11:35:29 PM
When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

You are a being a dishonest troll, again.  The problem is simple and has been presented several times on this forum with the same tired crap being offered in response.   

Your answer provides several issues:

1.  Atmoplanic lensing - a lovely catch all when confronted by difficult realities that can't be reconciled by the FE model.  Do you care to explain, or even offer in layman's terms how light would behave in this manner?  Can you cite a study where an experiment reproduced this phenomenon? 

2. The aether.  This is another element that has been soundly debunked multiple times.  Is there a journal or some other publication that you'd care to direct us to confirm the existence of this "aether"? 

3.  UA.  Utter tripe.  With your background in Doppler effect, I'm highly surprised you'd even go to this one as a support.  Again, any citations?

The problem with the quality of your posts is that you carefully try to tread a narrow path of never really stating anything.  Maps are flexible approximations to you and, until now from what I've seen, you've never really gone on record concerning what elements of this half-baked baloney you subscribe to. 

So UA, aether, and "atmoplanic nonsense", check. 

Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Gumwars on October 22, 2017, 11:36:42 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

Care to list the factors?  Again, can you give us a citation in a peer-reviewed publication where this phenomenon has been observed and reproduced in a way that supports your conclusion?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:39:12 PM
When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

You are a being a dishonest troll, again.  The problem is simple and has been presented several times on this forum with the same tired crap being offered in response.   

Your answer provides several issues:

1.  Atmoplanic lensing - a lovely catch all when confronted by difficult realities that can't be reconciled by the FE model.  Do you care to explain, or even offer in layman's terms how light would behave in this manner?  Can you cite a study where an experiment reproduced this phenomenon? 

2. The aether.  This is another element that has been soundly debunked multiple times.  Is there a journal or some other publication that you'd care to direct us to confirm the existence of this "aether"? 

3.  UA.  Utter tripe.  With your background in Doppler effect, I'm highly surprised you'd even go to this one as a support.  Again, any citations?

The problem with the quality of your posts is that you carefully try to tread a narrow path of never really stating anything.  Maps are flexible approximations to you and, until now from what I've seen, you've never really gone on record concerning what elements of this half-baked baloney you subscribe to. 

So UA, aether, and "atmoplanic nonsense", check.

1. I would guess you should look into refraction. Different mediums do weird things to the waves travelling through them.

2. For one, an Einstein lecture: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

3. What does Doppler have to do with that? The main evidence is that things fall downwards.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:43:04 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:45:08 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:47:30 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:57:32 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that.  ::)
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:08:32 AM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that.  ::)

But historically it was exactly the other way round. By observing the celestial bodies people came to the conclusion that earth is round.

So the observed position of a star from a certain place on earth at a certain time is determined by 2 factors, right?

1.The movement of the celestial gears
2. light bending by atmoplanic lensing
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:10:44 AM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that.  ::)

But historically it was exactly the other way round. By observing the celestial bodies people came to the conclusion that earth is round.

So the observed position of a star from a certain place on earth at a certain time is determined by 2 factors, right?

1.The movement of the celestial gears
2. light bending by atmoplanic lensing

Are you doing that thing again where you stretch a point out into several posts?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Gumwars on October 23, 2017, 12:13:31 AM
When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

You are a being a dishonest troll, again.  The problem is simple and has been presented several times on this forum with the same tired crap being offered in response.   

Your answer provides several issues:

1.  Atmoplanic lensing - a lovely catch all when confronted by difficult realities that can't be reconciled by the FE model.  Do you care to explain, or even offer in layman's terms how light would behave in this manner?  Can you cite a study where an experiment reproduced this phenomenon? 

2. The aether.  This is another element that has been soundly debunked multiple times.  Is there a journal or some other publication that you'd care to direct us to confirm the existence of this "aether"? 

3.  UA.  Utter tripe.  With your background in Doppler effect, I'm highly surprised you'd even go to this one as a support.  Again, any citations?

The problem with the quality of your posts is that you carefully try to tread a narrow path of never really stating anything.  Maps are flexible approximations to you and, until now from what I've seen, you've never really gone on record concerning what elements of this half-baked baloney you subscribe to. 

So UA, aether, and "atmoplanic nonsense", check.

1. I would guess you should look into refraction. Different mediums do weird things to the waves travelling through them.

2. For one, an Einstein lecture: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

3. What does Doppler have to do with that? The main evidence is that things fall downwards.

1.  Refraction won't work here.  You're assuming a lot without any support.  We both know that the behavior of light required to make Polaris appear the way it does, assuming a flat earth, makes no sense given what we know about the subject.  Again, a layman's description from you, the individual claiming that refraction is the culprit, would go a long way towards building support for the position.

2.  Did you read the entire article you referenced?  Up to and including his conclusion?  Ether did not appear to be something he firmly believed in.  The take away is that gravitational and magnetic fields exert some degree of influence on all of space-time.

3.  The Doppler effect on light as viewed from an object under constant acceleration.

Absent citations all of what you "conclude" are opinion. 
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that.  ::)

But historically it was exactly the other way round. By observing the celestial bodies people came to the conclusion that earth is round.

So the observed position of a star from a certain place on earth at a certain time is determined by 2 factors, right?

1.The movement of the celestial gears
2. light bending by atmoplanic lensing

Are you doing that thing again where you stretch a point out into several posts?

No, why?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:27:18 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:28:13 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Gumwars on October 23, 2017, 12:29:28 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

I can't believe you're calling this guy out for the exact same crap you pull.  Pot meet kettle.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:35:34 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

I can't believe you're calling this guy out for the exact same crap you pull.  Pot meet kettle.

What crap do I pull? I answer any question that's posed to me. If I have a point, I don't stretch it out into 6 posts. If I don't have a point, I don't respond, because there's no point to it.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Gumwars on October 23, 2017, 12:38:00 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

I can't believe you're calling this guy out for the exact same crap you pull.  Pot meet kettle.

What crap do I pull? I answer any question that's posed to me. If I have a point, I don't stretch it out into 6 posts. If I don't have a point, I don't respond, because there's no point to it.

I'd say a more accurate reply is that you respond.  To say that you answer a question is a stretch.  Both threads regarding flight distances you basically said nothing for two whole pages.  Your "answers" lacked anything of substance and did little to move your position towards a definitive conclusion.  Assuming the earth is flat and then declaring we have to make these flights work within that model is silly.  The flights don't work if the earth is flat, period.  Same with the questions asked here.  Polaris isn't visible south of the equator - refraction won't make that happen, period.  The Southern Cross and Sigma Octanis don't make sense if the earth is flat, period.  We can assume the earth is flat but then we are left with contradictions.  Unreconciliable contradictions.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:50:35 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

But, again..isn't it a remarkable thing, that this combination of the movement of the celestial gears and atmoplanic lensing results in a movement of the stars that can be perfectly described with the assumption that earth is a ball?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

But, again..isn't it a remarkable thing, that this combination of the movement of the celestial gears and atmoplanic lensing results in a movement of the stars that can be perfectly described with the assumption that earth is a ball?

Not really. There are often multiple explanations for an observed phenomenon.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:54:12 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

But, again..isn't it a remarkable thing, that this combination of the movement of the celestial gears and atmoplanic lensing results in a movement of the stars that can be perfectly described with the assumption that earth is a ball?

Not really. There are often multiple explanations for an observed phenomenon.

For example?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Gumwars on October 23, 2017, 12:55:55 AM
No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

But, again..isn't it a remarkable thing, that this combination of the movement of the celestial gears and atmoplanic lensing results in a movement of the stars that can be perfectly described with the assumption that earth is a ball?

Not really. There are often multiple explanations for an observed phenomenon.

Yes really.  Explanations dependent on a flat, geocentric earth result in contradictions.  Those dependent on a spherical, heliocentric earth do not. 
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: rabinoz on October 23, 2017, 12:58:52 AM
I can tell. I write very deliberately.
Yes, you are certainly are the local expert in writing "very deliberately" and saying nothing.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: NAZA on October 23, 2017, 09:45:23 AM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

Flatters aren't necessarily bad at math, they are AFRAID of math.
Math proves they are delusional.  Math proves they are wrong.
Take AltSkepti/R2dc3po for instance, he even flees his own thread when faced with doing the math for satellite directions and elevations.
Same with distances between cities.
They are afraid of doing the math, they know it proves them wrong.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Sentinel on October 23, 2017, 10:25:12 AM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

That one was neat.  ;D
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: ausGeoff on October 28, 2017, 11:26:26 AM
Flatters aren't necessarily bad at math, they are AFRAID of math...

Particularly non-Euclidean geometry it would seem.  Which is why they can't comprehend the spherical earth.  Quite funny actually.  Cause and effect?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: NAZA on October 28, 2017, 12:29:01 PM
Flatters aren't necessarily bad at math, they are AFRAID of math...

Particularly non-Euclidean geometry it would seem.  Which is why they can't comprehend the spherical earth.  Quite funny actually.  Cause and effect?

They fear any math that proves them wrong:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72137.msg1975520#msg1975520

Math is not their friend.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Empirical on October 28, 2017, 01:21:45 PM
Yes they are, take the Eratosthenes measurements of shadows, if they understood mathematicians they would know that a flat and round earth would give different results when three locations are used.
Btw if you use three locations, it matches a round earth.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 28, 2017, 02:36:06 PM
Flatters aren't necessarily bad at math, they are AFRAID of math...

Particularly non-Euclidean geometry it would seem.  Which is why they can't comprehend the spherical earth.  Quite funny actually.  Cause and effect?

They fear any math that proves them wrong:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72137.msg1975520#msg1975520

Math is not their friend.

You're pretty proud of this huh? I asked you to do it and we can discuss the math a few times now and you refuse to. I think it's you that's afraid. Why else would you not solve the problem?
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Chewing Gum on October 29, 2017, 09:48:37 AM
Since a flat earth leads to major contradictions in basic geometry,
i would say yes, they are indeed very bad in math.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: LuggerSailor on October 29, 2017, 10:56:59 AM
Not only bad at maths, none of them seem capable of performing and reporting the results of simple observations;

Posted on the other site;
No one else observed the sun's elevation at the solstice?

The geometry is quite interesting. I'm about 77.25 North of the Tropic of Capricorn. Each degree is 60 Nautical miles which works out that I'm 5334 miles North of the Tropic of Capricorn. Using trigonometry to calculate the vertical height of the sun above the Tropic on a flat plane, 5334*tan(13) = 1234. That doesn't fit with a 3000 mile height of the sun above a flat plane!
The 13 elevation does fit with the 77 angle between the Tropic and my location on a globe with a far distant sun (ok, I might have been 1/4 of a degree off in my measurement of the sun's elevation)


Observations and calculations poke great big holes in their beliefs.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on October 29, 2017, 11:09:48 AM
Just admit it: because Flat Earthers cannot grasp the complex mathematics behind rotating three dimensional spheres they've made it flat.

What complex maths are you referring to, exactly?

Trigonometry.
>complex maths
>trigonometry

You guys are gold  ;D
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 29, 2017, 11:16:00 AM
I'm bad at math and I'm a round earther.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on October 29, 2017, 11:24:26 AM
I'm bad at math and I'm a round earther.
Yeah, but you're from 'murica, that explains your math deficit.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 29, 2017, 11:25:43 AM
I'm bad at math and I'm a round earther.
Yeah, but you're from 'murica, that explains your math deficit.

Actually I was born in Italy and moved to the states when I was five. Maybe I spent too much time here.
Title: Re: Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on October 29, 2017, 11:54:42 AM
I'm bad at math and I'm a round earther.
Yeah, but you're from 'murica, that explains your math deficit.

Actually I was born in Italy and moved to the states when I was five. Maybe I spent too much time here.
I don't think you have learned too much maths before the age of 5.